Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Snowman3131

Jon Snow can leave the Night's Watch...

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

It didn’t happen in the books, either.

Actually, it does. 

It's been confirmed that Robb legitimized Jon Snow and made him his heir.

He's Jon Stark now even though he doesn't know it yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

Actually, it does. 

It's been confirmed that Robb legitimized Jon Snow and made him his heir.

 

Confirmed where, exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

The World of Ice and Fire app has confirmed it.

It would need to be a canonical source to confirm it, and it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 5, 2016 at 4:46 AM, Ser Morbid said:

People tend to forget he is still bastard and I doubt that he will be legitimized any time soon .. at least not till Tommen sits the throne 

Jon is legit Targ. It's why three KG are still at the ToJ guarding Lyanna. If Lyanna and Rhaegar never married, Jon would still be a bastard, and there'd be no reason for three Kingsguard to be hanging around. And they certainly wouldn't have any reason to fight.

Of course, how Jon and the rest of Westeros gets that info, considering Howland Reed is the only living person to have this info - and hopefully, soon to be Bran, remains to be seen.

He's ahead of Dany in the Line of Succession, being Rhaegar's son, and doesn't need to marry her to gain anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

It would need to be a canonical source to confirm it, and it isn't.

Actually it is canonical as the information there has been verified with GRRM

Such as Darkstar being one of Arianne's lovers 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be pretty cheap for Jon or anyone else to declare his vows invalid or fulfilled because of his death. I would be surprised, if he is no longer considered the LC after his resurrection.

But he will have to realize that he will only be able to protect the realm with the support of the North. And as the current warden will be unwilling to cooperate (because Ramsay want's Jon dead and is a short-sighted idiot) he will have to oppose him and put someone supportive (Sansa?) into that position by force.

I know this is also pointing out technicalities and goes a bit against my initial argument: But the NW not taking taking part in wars within the 7 kingdoms is not in the vows.
If taking part in a war within the north is necessary to make sure the Watch can fulfill it's purpose, to me, that's not breaking the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Was Robb's will even mentioned in the show?

I am certain it will because otherwise there would have been no point in the scene. I remember the scene and so do several others, it is just before the red wedding. Not remembering something doesn't stop it becoming canon.

As for the Knights at the ToJ proving that R+L=J, nothing of the kind. Yes, they prove Jon is the legitimate heir. But that disproves R+L. Bastards cannot inherit. And the only person who could make Jon legitimate would be Aerys so obviously didn't. Rheagar is dead by the time Jon is born,

There is a thing called path dependence. People come to a conclusion and fit the evidence to the conclusion. This is a prime example.

We will probably see a R+L hint tonight just as there are in the books. But laying false trails is standard practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall bla bla bla"

He died, watch over. 

And don't know if you noticed, but there isn't much of a NW left. 40 guys against the Night's King legions? Yeah right. Not to mention that half of those 40 people actually helped Thorne kill him, and the rest ended up agreeing with them Why would any sane person stay with a bunch of traitors that are about to be killed off anyway.?

He needs to go South and sound the alarm, the NW and the Wall are done for, they just haven't  realized it yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hallam said:

I am certain it will because otherwise there would have been no point in the scene. I remember the scene and so do several others, it is just before the red wedding. Not remembering something doesn't stop it becoming canon.

Do you not remember Robb's pregnant wife, Talisa? His own issue would have priority over his siblings, for even a daughter comes before an uncle.

What happened, or happens, outside the show does not matter one whinging whit to the show.  Here's all 

  1. Please cite the show episode in which Robb explicitly names Jon his heir by name and legitimizes Jon as a Stark.
  2. Please cite the show episode in which Robb sends off copies of his written will proclaiming these two things.

And try to be nicer about it while you're there.

The only way for any king to legitimize Jon is for Jon to have been a bastard to start with.  THEREFORE you seem to claim that Jon was a bastard here.  Otherwise he couldn't be proclaimed a non-bastard.

As for the Knights at the ToJ proving that R+L=J, nothing of the kind. Yes, they prove Jon is the legitimate heir. But that disproves R+L. Bastards cannot inherit. And the only person who could make Jon legitimate would be Aerys so obviously didn't. Rheagar is dead by the time Jon is born,

 

If Jon is the legitimate heir to the Iron Throne, then that legitimacy derives from either his birth or royal proclamation. You seem to rule out royal proclamation by claiming this proves Jon was not a legitimized bastard.  

THEREFORE you seem to claim Jon was not a bastard here, since otherwise the three Whitecloaks wouldn't have been there.

This is very confusing, since you seem to be simultaneously alleging that Jon both was and was not a bastard.  Which is it that you are claiming, the one or the other?  You can't claim both.

You are correct that Rhaegar died before Aerys he was never king and thus as merely a crown prince could not legitimize any bastards.  You offer neither logic nor reasoning that would explain how he was the legitimate heir, but since you seem convinced of this, I invite you to do so.

Let's assume that you're right and that Jon was there and was the heir and not a bastard. Here are popular choices; would you care to choose one of these or offer your own? 

  1. Rhaegar married Lyanna Stark, and she is Jon's mother.
  2. Rhaegar's wife Elia is Jon's mother, and she was there.
  3. Aerys's wife Rhaella is Jon's mother, and she was there.
  4. Rhaegar married Ashara Dayne, and she is Jon's mother and was there.

You don't seem to much care for choice one.  Are you alleging one of the other three choices is true, or do you have a suggestion of your own? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Xcorpyo001 said:

"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall bla bla bla"

He died, watch over. 

But if his watch is over and he is no longer a member of the Night's Watch, then he would no longer be Lord Commander and so he won’t be able to sentence his assassins to death.  Those two things seem incompatible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

But if his watch is over and he is no longer a member of the Night's Watch, then he would no longer be Lord Commander and so he won’t be able to sentence his assassins to death.  Those two things seem incompatible.

Make sure he goes around with a dve player and the recording of him returning to life

 

cuZ who would believe him 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Do you not remember Robb's pregnant wife, Talisa? His own issue would have priority over his siblings, for even a daughter comes before an uncle.

What happened, or happens, outside the show does not matter one whinging whit to the show.  Here's all 

  1. Please cite the show episode in which Robb explicitly names Jon his heir by name and legitimizes Jon as a Stark.
  2. Please cite the show episode in which Robb sends off copies of his written will proclaiming these two things.

And try to be nicer about it while you're there.

The only way for any king to legitimize Jon is for Jon to have been a bastard to start with.  THEREFORE you seem to claim that Jon was a bastard here.  Otherwise he couldn't be proclaimed a non-bastard.

If Jon is the legitimate heir to the Iron Throne, then that legitimacy derives from either his birth or royal proclamation. You seem to rule out royal proclamation by claiming this proves Jon was not a legitimized bastard.  

THEREFORE you seem to claim Jon was not a bastard here, since otherwise the three Whitecloaks wouldn't have been there.

This is very confusing, since you seem to be simultaneously alleging that Jon both was and was not a bastard.  Which is it that you are claiming, the one or the other?  You can't claim both.

You are correct that Rhaegar died before Aerys he was never king and thus as merely a crown prince could not legitimize any bastards.  You offer neither logic nor reasoning that would explain how he was the legitimate heir, but since you seem convinced of this, I invite you to do so.

Let's assume that you're right and that Jon was there and was the heir and not a bastard. Here are popular choices; would you care to choose one of these or offer your own? 

  1. Rhaegar married Lyanna Stark, and she is Jon's mother.
  2. Rhaegar's wife Elia is Jon's mother, and she was there.
  3. Aerys's wife Rhaella is Jon's mother, and she was there.
  4. Rhaegar married Ashara Dayne, and she is Jon's mother and was there.

You don't seem to much care for choice one.  Are you alleging one of the other three choices is true, or do you have a suggestion of your own? 

Pot, meet kettle. You are the person denying things as canon when you can't remember the show.

Robb believed Jon to be a bastard, therefore he legitimized him. That is not at all inconsistent with the theory that he was never a bastard and his parentage was being kept secret.

There is absolutely no requirement for Jon's actual mother to be at the ToJ. Particularly if she was dead. I don't think any polygamy theory works and certainly not Ashara. I think book Ashara is the mother of fake Aegon by one of the Stark brothers and that explains her faked suicide and disappearance. Most like father would be Benjen.

I think R+E is the only viable theory left. The birth is kept secret because the prophecy predicts something of the third child and Aerys looks set to murder the child. This explains the reports of Elia's health which are false.

After Robb legitimized him, Jon became next in line to be King in the North. Right now, that is the only place where any bloodline actually matters. R+L doesn't add anything of significance as the Targarians have lost the throne anyway. R+E makes Jon the legitimate Targarians heir, puts him in the line of succession in Dorne and maintains his claim to being King in the North as Jon's adoptive son. The Baratheon, Lannister, Arynn and Tyrell houses are extinct or will be by the time Jon gets to KL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Was Robb's will even mentioned in the show?

No. 

5 hours ago, hallam said:

As for the Knights at the ToJ proving that R+L=J, nothing of the kind. Yes, they prove Jon is the legitimate heir. But that disproves R+L. Bastards cannot inherit. And the only person who could make Jon legitimate would be Aerys so obviously didn't. Rheagar is dead by the time Jon is born,

 

R+L = married.

Targs practiced bigamy forever. If they weren't married, Jon would be a bastard, and there would be NO REASON for three KINGSGUARD to be guarding Lyanna. They certainly would have zero reason to fight Ned and his men. 

They're not just "knights." They're Kingsguard.

Their dialog also tells you that they're there, guarding a king. They specifically say Viserys isn't the king, because he has zero Kingsguard  with him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ShadowKitteh said:

No. 

R+L = married.

Targs practiced bigamy forever. If they weren't married, Jon would be a bastard, and there would be NO REASON for three KINGSGUARD to be guarding Lyanna. They certainly would have zero reason to fight Ned and his men. 

They're not just "knights." They're Kingsguard.

Their dialog also tells you that they're there, guarding a king. They specifically say Viserys isn't the king, because he has zero Kingsguard  with him.

 

The only way for them to be guarding the king is if the child is Rhaegar's.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ShadowKitteh said:

No. 

R+L = married.

Targs practiced bigamy forever. If they weren't married, Jon would be a bastard, and there would be NO REASON for three KINGSGUARD to be guarding Lyanna. They certainly would have zero reason to fight Ned and his men. 

They're not just "knights." They're Kingsguard.

Their dialog also tells you that they're there, guarding a king. They specifically say Viserys isn't the king, because he has zero Kingsguard  with him.

 

They practiced incest which is not the same as bigamy.

Of course the child has to be Rheagar's and must be the legitimate heir. Therefore Lyanna is not the mother, Elia is. You cannot use the fact that the kingsguard clearly treated Jon as legitimate to prove he was the product of an adulterous liaison with Lyanna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hallam said:

They practiced incest which is not the same as bigamy.

Of course the child has to be Rheagar's and must be the legitimate heir. Therefore Lyanna is not the mother, Elia is. You cannot use the fact that the kingsguard clearly treated Jon as legitimate to prove he was the product of an adulterous liaison with Lyanna.

Oh I see.

In which case Jon is not related to Ned at all.

In which case Ned has lied to Jon all his life by saying otherwise.  

In which case Ned has sacrificed his honor for someone he is not related to.

In which case Ned disgraced his good wife for someone he is not related to.

None of that makes an iota of sense.  

It would make Ned's own internal dialogue a lie, his entire character a lie, even to himself.

It would make the entire series a big troll game by Martin for twenty years planting false clues like some hack writer who flips the bird to his readers.

For twenty years.

I don't believe that, and I doubt whether anyone else does either. There isn't one scintilla of evidence in that direction. Not a single one.

Occam's Razor wins here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you pay attention, even the tv series has thrown numerous of hints of the R and L theory.

its not even about the books. In fact, the show with the small amount of time has really beefed up their time for Lyanna related things. Now the tower of joy too! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Xcorpyo001 said:

"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall bla bla bla"

He died, watch over. 

And don't know if you noticed, but there isn't much of a NW left. 40 guys against the Night's King legions? Yeah right. Not to mention that half of those 40 people actually helped Thorne kill him, and the rest ended up agreeing with them Why would any sane person stay with a bunch of traitors that are about to be killed off anyway.?

He needs to go South and sound the alarm, the NW and the Wall are done for, they just haven't  realized it yet.

Yeah, as soon as I saw those lines I thought someone is going to join the NW, die and come back. 

But it also says 'for this night and all the nights to come'. So its a bit ambiguous.

Also, a thought struck me. Danny is infertile, could it be that Jon is when he comes back? While Jon is the hero of the series, I suspect that the actual ruling thing will end up being left to Tyrion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×